Talk:Schesam

RFV discussion: October 2021
. Not in DWDS, zeno.org and Google Books didn't show much. --Myrelia (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I came across this word in handwritten records of dominican monastery in Znojmo from 18th century (Arculario pro una cistula ad schesam). It's indeed not common, but I assume it's just a version of this word. It's right, that I have no printed source for this. Dominikmatus (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But you can cite it anyway by archive number and page/folium. Fay Freak (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Handwritten records can be durably archived as well and can be cited. However, WT:CFI requires 3 German usages. The quoted part is (New) Latin and has  in it. --Myrelia (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if that is supposed to be the occurrence (I thought it a title) then it is Latin, indeclinable neuter presumably. Fay Freak (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Guys, I¨m not sure now why I put in in german, I most likely assumed it's germanism. If you think it should be new latin and it could not be deleted, move it and source could be provided:

Moravian Provincial Archive, collection E17 Dominican monastery Znojmo, signature II C 11, Account book 1716-1724, not foliated, 17th June 1719: Arculario pro una cistula ad schesam 30 x -Dominikmatus (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved. I suspect there are more indeclinables reborrowed till the 18th century from Semitic like ***schemschem or ***schimschim lingering in the Mss. Fay Freak (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)